Brodatz v. Engelmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brodatz v. Engelmann

31 A.D.2d 634, 295 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2756

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 9, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 634 (Brodatz v. Engelmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brodatz v. Engelmann, 31 A.D.2d 634, 295 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered 'September 7, 1961, dismissed, without costs. Said order was superseded by the resettled order entered October 29, 1962. Order of the same court made on resettlement and entered October 29, 1962, modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) striking therefrom the two resettled ordering paragraphs which direct that plaintiffs are not entitled to interest on the judgment and that plaintiffs be reimbursed for a certain tax payment only out of funds in the receiver’s hands and (2) substituting therefor the following: “ ORDERED, that the accrued interest on the judgment, in the amount of $768.49, and the taxes on the property for the year 1959-1960 in the amount of $474.32 due January 1, 1960 and paid by the plaintiffs October 5, 1960 shall not be paid by the Referee out of the [635]*635proceeds on hand hut shall he reimbursed to them from the funds in the hands of the receiver.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the record does not support a finding of waiver by plaintiffs of interest awarded in the judgment of foreclosure and sale. The record does support a finding, however, that plaintiffs agreed to look to the fund in the hands of the receiver of rents appointed at their instance for payment of accrued interest and the tax payment they made. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered 'September 7, 1961, dismissed, without costs. Said order was superseded by the resettled order entered October 29, 1962. Order of the same court made on resettlement and entered October 29, 1962, modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) striking therefrom the two resettled ordering paragraphs which direct that plaintiffs are not entitled to interest on the judgment and that plaintiffs be reimbursed for a certain tax payment only out of funds in the receiver’s hands and (2) substituting therefor the following: “ ORDERED, that the accrued interest on the judgment, in the amount of $768.49, and the taxes on the property for the year 1959-1960 in the amount of $474.32 due January 1, 1960 and paid by the plaintiffs October 5, 1960 shall not be paid by the Referee out of the [635]*635proceeds on hand hut shall he reimbursed to them from the funds in the hands of the receiver.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the record does not support a finding of waiver by plaintiffs of interest awarded in the judgment of foreclosure and sale. The record does support a finding, however, that plaintiffs agreed to look to the fund in the hands of the receiver of rents appointed at their instance for payment of accrued interest and the tax payment they made. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 634, 295 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodatz-v-engelmann-nyappdiv-1968.